Play balancing

[Deathtreader]

Hi,

Here's another one...........

Would it be possible to allow the 2 sides (whether head to head or AI) to play at different realism settings?? that way a newer player could play at -- for example-- realistic whilst the more experienced player played at painfully realistic. This would be another way to play balance without resorting to adjusting supply levels and reinforcements etc.

Just a thought.

Rob.[:)]

[Arjuna]

Good idea. I like it.[:)]

[wodin]

May also help if your struggling with a certain scenario or feel the AI may need alittle boost on others.

[rfrizz]

This never occurred to me. The AI has the same orders delay as you. Right?

[RayWolfe]

Sure does.
No AI cheating in this game!

[rfrizz]

That's what I like about it. In the early 90s, there was a really cool game, "Command HQ" that was real time and not hex based. It also had head to head via modem, null modem, or lan.

I loved it, but the AI just had the rules relaxed if you wanted to crank up the difficulty. I had Yahtzee on the old TI-994a computer, and it had the same approach to difficulty.

When you set Yahtzee to the highest difficulty level, it would consistently roll Yahtzee a lot more frequently than the 19 to 1 odds against would predict. They could have been a little more subtle about the cheating than having the damn thing Yahtzee on you so much.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: wodin

May also help if your struggling with a certain scenario or feel the AI may need alittle boost on others.

For some of the new HttR scenarios, the Allied AI needs a big boost; playing as the Axis in the old Red Devils over Arnhem scenario was more slaughter than game.

I was concerned that the greater accuracy in this remake would adversely affect the play balance, and it did.

[Arjuna]

What aspect do you think needs attention? Are the Allies too slow to get to their objectives? Are the Axis too quick? Is it a firepower issue or is the strategies/approaches being taken by the Allies letting them down?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

What aspect do you think needs attention? Are the Allies too slow to get to their objectives? Are the Axis too quick? Is it a firepower issue or is the strategies/approaches being taken by the Allies letting them down?

To some extent, all of the above.

When XXX Corps first arrived and moved North, it met weaker rear-guard units along the Highway to Arnhem, but instead of destroying them in detail with the engine's 3-pronged attack, it took the longer way around to the East, which should only have been warrented if the highway objectives were well-defended.

The initial AI para drops seemed uncoordinated and ineffective, but for the record, mine never worked well either: I think the only workable strategy is to take the Rail Bridge objective, which, if it isn't blown, draws defenders to it and away from Arnhem.

Under the new version, I never seem to get the paras anywhere near Arnhem, but I'm curious to know if any of the alpha and/or beta-testers did, and if so, how exactly did they mange it?

With this latest version, I just can't achieve anything near the historical results under normal setttings .

[wodin]

I think when your making a wargame about a battle where one side performed exceptionally well beyond what would normally be expected it is very hard to replicate that in a game especially if the engine is designed with other battles in mind. The only way around it I think would be to increase the modifiers when dealing with unit and leader abilities, so a real crack unit will perform if having the bars full well beyond what should be expected.SO when it comes to recreating these battles you have units able to perform aswell as their real life counter parts. I think maybe a luck ability might be an idea..where if in real life the unit had some really good luck which led to the outcome then that unit has a high luck ability which again increases certain modifiers0..maybe they are harder to spot or kill or something...but you only use it for units that had luck on ttheir side in the real life battle.

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Under the new version, I never seem to get the paras anywhere near Arnhem, but I'm curious to know if any of the alpha and/or beta-testers did, and if so, how exactly did they mange it?

With this latest version, I just can't achieve anything near the historical results under normal setttings .

If you mean playing the Allies in the Arnhem scenario, then yes I am usually able to get at a para Bn near the bridge objective, hopefully enough to keep the Germans from accumulating points, that's all. It usually means following Frost's route in column formation, moving fast, and dispatching a company occasionally to attack any German companies that pop up along the way.

[Arjuna]

Joe D.,

I just ran a quick RDOA scenario as the Brits to 2100 on Day 1. I stopped it there because I had forgot to set all my forces to no rest. Consequently the Attacks and Moves I had ordered just came to an abrupt halt. Now you think someone like me should no better.[8|]

As you can see from the screen dump 2nd Para Bn would have secured the rail bridge any moment now. 1st Para had routed off 4 Kraft Coy at Hartenstein and the KOSB Bn was just about to overrun the rest of Kraft Bn. A German column was approaching from the west at Groote Heide. but I was confident the two Border companies there would stop them in their tracks. I had the depleted South Staffs Bnmoving down the highway towards Arnhem - so far unopposed.

I probably should have opted to drive the 2nd Para into Arnhem instead of going for the rail bridge. They probably would have slipped into Arnhem unchallenged or at least they would have stemmed the flow of German reinforcements heading west down the road to Hartenstein. But even so, by setting the troops to Move at fastest speed, with no rest and with Bypass options you should be able to get pretty close to replicating the historical outcomes.

Re the 30th Corps advance up the highway. Point taken about the bypass. Perhaps what we need is a two pronged bypass, where we split the force into two parts with one prong continuing along the opriginal route, while a secondary force attempts to bypass.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I think when your making a wargame about a battle where one side performed exceptionally well beyond what would normally be expected it is very hard to replicate that in a game especially if the engine is designed with other battles in mind. The only way around it I think would be to increase the modifiers when dealing with unit and leader abilities ...

You may have hit the nail on the head; John Frost's abilities don't seem to be that much better than that of his peers, but shouldn't they be, considering Frost was one of the most experienced and determined para battalion commanders?

IMO, boosting Frost's and other Allied cdr's abilities could help balance this scenario.

ORIGINAL: simovitch

... It usually means following Frost's route in column formation, moving fast, and dispatching a company occasionally to attack any German companies that pop up along the way.

Column at no rest heading east along the highway at attack and not bypass?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

I probably should have opted to drive the 2nd Para into Arnhem instead of going for the rail bridge. They probably would have slipped into Arnhem unchallenged or at least they would have stemmed the flow of German reinforcements heading west down the road to Hartenstein. But even so, by setting the troops to Move at fastest speed, with no rest and with Bypass options you should be able to get pretty close to replicating the historical outcomes ...

We'll see what happens at my end.

[Arjuna]

Frost's 2nd Para Bn route ran along the southern minor road not the main road that ran through Hartenstein.

[simovitch]

Column at no rest heading east along the highway at attack and not bypass?

the whole column moves along (move command) no attack toggle. I never have much luck with bypass. When a threat is encountered attack with a single company and maybe some support and let the Bn continue with it's previous order; It will halt on it's own until the threat is removed.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

As you can see from the screen dump 2nd Para Bn would have secured the rail bridge any moment now. 1st Para had routed off 4 Kraft Coy at Hartenstein and the KOSB Bn was just about to overrun the rest of Kraft Bn. A German column was approaching from the west at Groote Heide. but I was confident the two Border companies there would stop them in their tracks. I had the depleted South Staffs Bnmoving down the highway towards Arnhem - so far unopposed.

I probably should have opted to drive the 2nd Para into Arnhem instead of going for the rail bridge. They probably would have slipped into Arnhem unchallenged or at least they would have stemmed the flow of German reinforcements heading west down the road to Hartenstein. But even so, by setting the troops to Move at fastest speed, with no rest and with Bypass options you should be able to get pretty close to replicating the historical outcomes.

At least in HTTR (without "no rest" option), focusing on the bridge didn't work out, usually, as the steady stream of forces from the east made penetrating Arnheim difficult - later on, especially slightly west of the West Arnheim objective (On your screenshot around the location where you can see a Coy that looks like a German armored Recon unit (same symbol that is used for [US?] Armored Cavalry these days), according to its symbol.
It's best to speed to Arnheim, like you or Simo suggested, then occupy the Arnheim highway bridge, and create a concentric defensive perimeter (well, actually a kind of semicircle, due to the closeness to the river) that is large enough to ensure that all crossroads and main entry points (arterial or radial roads) are blocked.

Your strategy in the West (2 dispatched Coys at Groote Heide) to block the highway usually works out for 1 day (and maybe several hours per each new "wave"), but then the delayed enemy (and future) columns will just ship around your roadblock after one or two unsuccessful attempts to dislodge the blocking units. It's best to advance as far as Ede and have an entire Bn establish a strong block of dug-in Coys instead, covering the polder/dam in the west and the northern approaches (possibly used by Naval/fortress units later on), who should be supported by 1 or 2 additional Mortar Coys. That block force should be left there until the Arnheim force starts to loose ground/troops heavily and then should be sent to Arnheim to reinforce the troops there.

Same with the southern approaches (south of the drop zone) to Wageningen: 3-4 Coys placed at the outskirts of the woods, blocking the main highway (roads to Arnheim), and supported by 2 mortar coys will take a big deal of pressure from the main force in Arnheim and delay the German build-up.

If one or another Coy can make it to the very important crossroads South and South East of Deelen airfield, as forward roadblocks, then this will seriously delay precious German reinforcements as well.

Destroying the 88mm position (either with Polish Para units later on, or - if you manage to take the rail bridge early on - with British troops) at the "Medinhardweg" (North of Elden) may be costly (it may require several Coys), but takes the enemy's ability to spot (for German long range/heavy arty and Nebelwerfer) and fire at your troops on the other side of the river.

Re the 30th Corps advance up the highway. Point taken about the bypass. Perhaps what we need is a two pronged bypass, where we split the force into two parts with one prong continuing along the opriginal route, while a secondary force attempts to bypass.

Actually, I guess that's what most experienced players (and commanders in RL) will do anyway, where maybe the "continuing" prong should bring the tanks forward to protect the precious INF units (as they will be sitting ducks on the highway) and to push up the highway.
The bypassing part of the split force should mainly consist of fast armored units, followed by the armored assets and motorized Inf at the rear, with Recon units (which should have a higher spotting range, since they are faster, more mobile and have better equipment for sighting) being the spearhead, in order to find the best route. I don't know how advanced the AI code is in that respect (recon, spotting, selection of routes for the main force), but whatever you do code-wise, I suggest to make the change of the plan (to split the forces) an option for the human player, as there may be situations where alt routes are occupied or just used by the enemy, so that it would be desirable to maintain a two-pronged attack/move.

Maybe like an option in the left-hand menu "split forces (if attack on the main POA [point of attack] is endangered to be delayed)" or a message window like "It appears that the current enemy activity will delay division XY's assault, do you want to split forces and bypass with half of your troops?" ["Yes"] ["No"]

[GoodGuy]

Edited this reply accidently, instead of adding a new reply, dang. Sorry.

[Arjuna]

Goodguy,

As I mentioned in my post I gave the orders forgetting to set the "No Rest" option. So by 2100 the forces ( on "normal" rest option ) had decided to rest for the night. That is to be expected.

[GoodGuy]

Yes, I gathered that part. [:)]
That doesn't answer my question, though, plus it doesn't explain why INF units (may go for other units as well) won't move more than say 400 to 1600 meters per night, depending on parameters, if they are fatigued. My question was : Does BFTB still have that "feature"?
I edited the reply above accidently, instead of posting a new reply, but I could save one bit, so here goes:

In the demo, it was basically impossible to move INF units at night, and even with "no rest" order they would just move for another 20 mins to 1 hr before they would "fall asleep" again.

The other question was: Are INF units able to force march at night (and/or for a longer time) now, and are they able to withdraw/disengage from the enemy despite very high fatigue levels?